Stack for Height and Dimo - GTFIH

[Trenscension]

Test Base - 5 mg ed
Primo - 20 mg ed

 

[Zagro]

Yo seem like you know what you are doing instead of blasting everything inside of your body to hope that it works could you explain further, I saw you post about letrozole being to much what were the side-effects you experienced (thinking about taking 2.5mgED)?

Tearing up daily, insanely depressed, zero motivation, fatigue and having to distract myself in every way possible to keep on going

If you already are in a bad place mentally, lack motivation or have body dysmorphia like 99% of users here do not take it without an SSRI or even ERb agonists

You will become miserable on it

 

[Zagro]

Infinite evidence

Send one

 

[AtrophicPyra]

Send one

Am too lazy and busy rn in all seriousness but look at this thread I made I made more on other forums too

https://looksmax.org/threads/height-cycle-first-real-cycle.2148853/#post-29648310
This was the thread btw, very cancerous @AtrophicPyra

Oh shit it was you https://looksmax.org/threads/trenbo...-the-main-driver-take-a-look-at-this.2152733/

click on the second thread scroll in the study,
You will see tren+excerise was taller but it’s solely because rats get bigger under tension more than humans but if we remove that variable u can see their femurs r actually smaller than the control group

 

[Zagro]

Am too lazy and busy rn in all seriousness but look at this thread I made I made more on other forums too

click on the second thread scroll in the study,
You will see tren+excerise was taller but it’s solely because rats get bigger under tension more than humans but if we remove that variable u can see their femurs r actually smaller than the control group

Without nuking E2 it surely will rape any existing growth and just from looking at the results none are statistically significant as the paper states itself, as ive said not nuking E2 (thereby progesterone being net-negative) or controlling other things such as prolactin could be negative i guess.

The rats had a weight of 61.80 grams and with a dosage of 500mcg once a week even less considering the enanthate ester so 70% active trenbolone 350mcg once a week in their weaning phase (28 days old) when they're still pups/baby rats, hard to extrapolate from here honestly.

The p-values are not supporting anything aswell as there is a 35.5% probability of the results being a coincidence and the f-value proves further that there isn't anything that statistically significant among all groups.

The reason for the slightly reduced length can be caused by a plethora of causes, not controlled estrogen + high progesterone from trenbolone is very likely to "rape" any existing growth adding on the prolactin problems aswell. The effects aren't as pronounced because of the low dosages used probably, and possible would cause centimetres of height loss in pre-adolescent children but you have to consider the fact that you still gain positive effects on primarily on IGF-1, glucocorticoids, androgens and etc so it wont be as dramatic maybe.

Now that ive read it again this may be all bullshit because tren would suppress the endogenous testosterone production thereby lowering systemic estrogen levels but still amplifying the effect of the remaining local estrogen so the body would still compensate greatly with sensitivity etc. This is if the dose was enough to suppress it adequately.

Just wrote a lot of shit here for you to explain how many theories there could be and that this isn't enough information, not even close by miles, to make a consensus on anything

 

[infrainfra]

Without nuking E2 it surely will rape any existing growth and just from looking at the results none are statistically significant as the paper states itself, as ive said not nuking E2 (thereby progesterone being net-negative) or controlling other things such as prolactin could be negative i guess.

The rats had a weight of 61.80 grams and with a dosage of 500mcg once a week even less considering the enanthate ester so 70% active trenbolone 350mcg once a week in their weaning phase (28 days old) when they're still pups/baby rats, hard to extrapolate from here honestly.

The p-values are not supporting anything aswell as there is a 35.5% probability of the results being a coincidence and the f-value proves further that there isn't anything that statistically significant among all groups.

The reason for the slightly reduced length can be caused by a plethora of causes, not controlled estrogen + high progesterone from trenbolone is very likely to "rape" any existing growth adding on the prolactin problems aswell. The effects aren't as pronounced because of the low dosages used probably, and possible would cause centimetres of height loss in pre-adolescent children but you have to consider the fact that you still gain positive effects on primarily on IGF-1, glucocorticoids, androgens and etc so it wont be as dramatic maybe.

Now that ive read it again this may be all bullshit because tren would suppress the endogenous testosterone production thereby lowering systemic estrogen levels but still amplifying the effect of the remaining local estrogen so the body would still compensate greatly with sensitivity etc. This is if the dose was enough to suppress it adequately.

Just wrote a lot of shit here for you to explain how many theories there could be and that this isn't enough information, not even close by miles, to make a consensus on anythin

my opinion is that androgens ALONE arent good for longitudinal growth. look at androgens effects on mineralization and then look at how negligible the results of non aromatizable androgens are on longitudinal bone growth or even isolated lab setting growth plate cartilage. tho tren upregulating igf-1 (not proven in bone cells) may be controversial after reading this study